A prominent patent law blogger has again raised the argument that Apple's patented features have very little value, while stopping short of saying that Samsung should just stop using the infringing technology.

Samsung cost to copy Apple too high

Repeating an opinion from early March, FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller has again railed against Apple's demands for patent royalty claims against Samsung writing that he was "not just disappointed but even angry" about the amount Apple was asking.

Apple's second Samsung trial, initiated back in 2011, does not include recent Samsung models like the company's flagship Galaxy S4 released last spring. While Apple attempted to add the model last May, Judge Paul Grewal ruled last June that "allowing Apple to add the Galaxy S4 would also violate U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh's request that the case be streamlined and that the number of products and patents at issue in the litigation be reduced."

Apple patent claims vs Samsung's

Applying Apple's proposed royalty rate to a Samsung device that infringed all five patents would amount to around $40, a figure Mueller contrasted with Samsung's "SEP royalty demand of approximately $12 per device (for a whole portfolio of wireless SEPs)."

However, Samsung's SEP (Standards Essential Patent) suit against Apple at the International Trade Commission actually demanded around $16 to $18 per accused iPhone, and that related to just a single patent: 7,362,867, one that had already been thrown out by Judge Koh the previous year as obviously not infringed by Apple.

Samsung had calculated its roughly $16 demand per iPhone by claiming that it was owed around 2.7 percent of the entire cost of the iPhone for a patent that had already been licensed by Infineon, the maker of the accused $11.72 baseband chip that Apple had been using in its products.

Mueller is aware of this because he reported at the time that Samsung's SEP claim related to "trivial functionality" within the chip's implemention of the 3G UMTS wireless standard, and that "the accused portion of the UMTS standard accounts for about 0.0000375% of that standard. [...] And Samsung only contributed to a portion of that 0.0000375%."

Mueller is now comparing Samsung's "trivial" SEP demand for one patent against Apple's total demands for five patents covering features Samsung didn't just accidentally run afoul of, but rather purposely pulled from its Copy Cat iPhone studies as features it needed in its own products in order to be competitive with Apple's iPhone.

And despite all that, Apple is asking for less per patent (an average of $8) than Samsung was demanding for its FRAND licensed, standard essential baseband patent involving a chip that cost less to buy than Samsung's $16 royalty demand. It's not a mystery why the ITC case was vetoed by President Obama: Samsung's outrageous demand involved some of the worst patent abuse one could imagine.

Sauce for the gander

Apple argued to the ITC that Samsung shouldn't be able to demand more for patent royalties than the baseband chip was even sold for. Mueller says this same sort of reasoning should also apply to Apple, stating "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Because four of the five patents Apple is arguing relate to Google's Android, Mueller wrote, "I'm unaware of any explanation by Apple of why the total cost of patent licenses relating to Android should not be limited to a percentage of the contribution that Android makes to the market value of a smartphone or tablet computer."

In other words, the royalty base of Samsung's infringing patents should be tied to the value of Android, and, as Mueller next points out, "mobile operating systems do not account for sky-high percentages of the entire market value of a smartphone or tablet computer."

Android licensees, however, see significant value in Android or they'd still be using platforms like Symbian, PalmOS and Windows Mobile. Android phones sell in the market because they look and work much more like the iPhone than those previous mobile OSs that nobody uses anymore, or new alternatives like Windows Phone.

Mueller also noted that after suffering unfortunate screen damage, replacing the screen of his Samsung Note 2 phablet cost him around $400, which he called "one of various indications of the non-operating-system components of the total cost and market value of a smartphone."

However, an entirely new Samsung Note 2 unlocked on Amazon lists for less than $415. Apple's in-store screen replacement for an iPhone 5s costs $149. So Mueller's very expensive screen replacement really just indicates that Samsung doesn't offer affordable screen replacement for its customers.

Apple's demands relative to Apple's own patent costs

Mueller wrote that his piece was intended to "raise a question and to highlight some key facts in this context, not to give a definitive answer on a highly complex issue."

However, there are other patent comparisons we can use to evaluate the relative merits of Apple's damages claim. Last year, Apple was hit with a $368 million patent verdict related to a claim from VirnetX involving VPN connectivity. VirnetX does not practice its technology, it merely sues companies for money. VirnetX's patent was filed in 2007 and actually granted just days before the company rushed it into court against Apple.

The cases are different in significant ways: Apple hadn't dissected VirnetX's VPN technology in a shipping product or documented how it set out to steal it in a competitive Copy Cat report (a Samsung practice Mueller calls "benchmarking"). Instead, Apple internally developed a variety of products, including FaceTime and the VPN on Demand feature of iOS 6, and VirnetX came after it with broad patent claims that describe how VPNs can work, patents that were granted long after Apple developed its own technology.

VirnetX convinced a judge to force Apple to change how its products work and pay the Non-Practicing Entity $368 million for infringement of the single patent. After winning, VirnetX filed a second suit that adds all of Apple's latest products to a new claim.

VirnetX just won a $368 million damages award against Apple and immediately filed a suit over same patents against iPhone 5 and iPad mini.

VirnetX filed its original claim shortly after Apple filed its second suit against Samsung, but the judge involved was able to fast track the case to completion before the end of 2012 without scaling back either the number of products VirnetX could accuse or the patent claims it was allowed to bring.

There has been no significant public scrutiny of VirnetX's claims, no anonymous defense from the open source community seeking to invalidate its nebulous ownership claims related to VPN, no clownish liveblogging of the trial and, while Mueller tweeted the verdict, he didn't appear to have blogged any outrage over the damages figure VirnetX was awarded.

Rather than Apple's patent claim being unreasonably high in comparison to other patent cases of less obvious value, Apple is asking half what Samsung demanded (under a threat of an ITC import ban) per patent, or roughly the same total amount per patent across the range of accused devices as VirnetX's patent.

Of course he holds that view. Florian Mueller has been an anti-Apple troll for a long time. Yeah, he seems to know what he's talking about, but he's always skewed against Apple, and supports whoever is attacking Apple, while trivializing Apple's arguments. It's not a coincidence.

What the **** is the point of developing anything anymore, if everything has "little value"? Amazing how every smartphone in existence now has followed the iPhone template, which I guess had "little value" to begin with, right?

Of course he holds that view. Florian Mueller has been an anti-Apple troll for a long time. Yeah, he seems to know what he's talking about, but he's always skewed against Apple, and supports whoever is attacking Apple, while trivializing Apple's arguments. It's not a coincidence.

I thought that numerous AI articles in the past have heralded him as a legal genius for coming down on Apple's side of the patent trials. Does my memory fail me?

I thought that numerous AI articles in the past have heralded him as a legal genius for coming down on Apple's side of the patent trials. Does my memory fail me?

Florian and FOSS are usually skewed very pro Apple. Here at AI you're only as good as your latest decision. For reference see the posts on Judge Koh on any given day if she's made a decision pro Apple (best judge ever!, YAY!) or against Apple (obvious Korean plant, totally incompetent, BOO!).

Attentions AI'rs, Florian Mueller said something bad about Apple. He is now the enemy. Attack.

Apple's patents seem to be one step removed from 'touching a screen, to make something happen- on a mobile device' so I'm not a huge fan of them.

The patent system needs a complete rework, it wasn't designed in, and is very inept, to handle the modern era.

I read these Mueller posts and he makes some valid points. However, he clearly shows his bias when he says it took him a single second to make up his mind about the $40 Apple is demanding. Had he considered the matter a few extra seconds he might have entertained the notion that Apple's $40 per unit demand is more a strategy to force Samsung to invent its own stuff than to actually net $40 in royalties. Apple set the price sufficiently high to ensure Samsung would reject that amount (remember, the amount was demanded during pre-trial arbitration).

I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.

Mueller arguments (and Samsung's actions) are self-contradicting... If the ideas covered by Apple's patents have so little value, then why didn't Samsung stop implementing them long ago? Samsung's actions are the best evidence that Apple's patents do, in fact, have intrinsic value, and the evidentary record is replete with the opinions of Samsung executives that the features were important to copy...

Mueller should share his opinions with the U.S. Patent office, if he thinks Apple's ideas are inherently not patentable... But as long as Apple hold patents, they have every right to pursue compensation from those who copy them and/or cease-and-desist orders...

Florian and FOSS are usually skewed very pro Apple. Here at AI you're only as good as your latest decision. For reference see the posts on Judge Koh on any given day if she's made a decision pro Apple (best judge ever!, YAY!) or against Apple (obvious Korean plant, totally incompetent, BOO!).

Attentions AI'rs, Florian Mueller said something bad about Apple. He is now the enemy. Attack.

Apple's patents seem to be one step removed from 'touching a screen, to make something happen- on a mobile device' so I'm not a huge fan of them.

The patent system needs a complete rework, it wasn't designed in, and is very inept, to handle the modern era.

Florian isn’t the enemy and he isn’t being attacked. He simply posted a lot of opinions that are of questionable logic, and here he’s being questioned on them.

Not interested in reading about him here
any more than I am about discussing groklaw goofiness.

I think it's more likely his old contract expired. His current opinions are much more in keeping with his old patent battles in Europe. Holding hands with the very company he demonized for years, Microsoft, and taking a decidedly pro-software patent position never jived with his prior history.

That doesn't necessarily mean he hasn't found a new client. I've often thought his opinions over the past couple of years to be intended for support of someone else's agenda so maybe nothing has changed other than the clientele.

Of course he holds that view. Florian Mueller has been an anti-Apple troll for a long time.

Au contraire, Mueller has historically been pro-Apple and recently became anti-Apple, pro-Samsung and a developer of Android apps. He used to make sense but his recent writings completely distort the legal situation, as indicated here on AI. He claims to have no equity interest in Apple, Google or Samsung, but there are many ways to have a conflict of interest; IMHO he is not being forthcoming about a conflict. To change one's opinion about Apple's ability to have success in the courts is one thing, but to suddenly misrepresent Apple's and Samsung's cases is entirely another matter.

To me, the patents are more like a tools used against Samsung more then having any actual value itself.

May be those patents are really useless, or may be they are generic.

But there should be no disagreement that Samsung Copied Apple, from design to trade dress. And many other little things and details. But these are hard to argue, and sometimes experience ,"trade dress" design are hard to explain and put into context infront of court.

Hence why these patents are used.

Now not only did Samsung not bring any concrete evidence of NOT copying, ( actually most evidence they present even suggest they do ) they decided to go on the offense and sue Apple with Standard Essential Patents.

Florian and FOSS are usually skewed very pro Apple. Here at AI you're only as good as your latest decision. For reference see the posts on Judge Koh on any given day if she's made a decision pro Apple (best judge ever!, YAY!) or against Apple (obvious Korean plant, totally incompetent, BOO!).

Attentions AI'rs, Florian Mueller said something bad about Apple. He is now the enemy. Attack.

Apple's patents seem to be one step removed from 'touching a screen, to make something happen- on a mobile device' so I'm not a huge fan of them.

The patent system needs a complete rework, it wasn't designed in, and is very inept, to handle the modern era.

He wasn't skewed pro-Apple - he was skewed pro-truth. Lately he's been critical of Apple, and I'm not really sure why. I'll reserve judgment for when the trial is over and to hear what his opinions of the verdict are.

As to claiming AI "you're only as good as your last decision", that's actually reserved for the Android users/Apple haters on all tech blogs following this. To imply otherwise is to ignore facts (sort of like Android users saying something like "if Apple users stop trolling Android articles, then we'll stop trolling Apple articles" when the numbers show that it's the Android users/Apple haters who comprise the largest number of troll posts worldwide.

Au contraire, Mueller has historically been pro-Apple and recently became anti-Apple, pro-Samsung and a developer of Android apps.

He has mentioned that he's developing an Android App. I can only conclude that it's probably an App for a certain demographic where Android is the dominant platform (perhaps something for his home country of Germany).

No App developer wanting to reach the widest possible audience of revenue generating customers would ever choose Android first (or choose to be Android exclusive).

Mueller arguments (and Samsung's actions) are self-contradicting... If the ideas covered by Apple's patents have so little value, then why didn't Samsung stop implementing them long ago? Samsung's actions are the best evidence that Apple's patents do, in fact, have intrinsic value, and the evidentary record is replete with the opinions of Samsung executives that the features were important to copy...

This is a key point. Why spend so much $$$ in court fighting over a feature that's "worthless"?

As we've seen with Slide-To-Unlock and Samsung's own internal user testing, it's far from useless. In fact, it was the best method out of all the ones they tried.

Something is up with Florian -- he had a pretty consistent pro-apple (pro logic, pro competitive market) opinion, but his recent positions have given me a severe case of whiplash.

Then tonight I read he used his $400 screen replacement experience to conclude that a 6" note screen means the software portion of a phone has little value. Wtf? Dude, you got ripped off for a phone repair. A 4" LCD screen isn't much cheaper than a 6" Note screen. Both about $50 in parts.

He has mentioned that he's developing an Android App. I can only conclude that it's probably an App for a certain demographic where Android is the dominant platform (perhaps something for his home country of Germany).

No App developer wanting to reach the widest possible audience of revenue generating customers would ever choose Android first (or choose to be Android exclusive).

Android first, then Windows with no plans for iOS at this stage.

Too bad if his App gets pirated or if he uses Google's method of piracy protection he gets sued by the patent troll who is currently targeting Android developers who use it.

East Texas might open his eyes a little bit.

Apple's patents are Apple's property, they are not standards essential, Apple can ask whatever they want, it is up to the buyer to accept the price, not use them or blatantly steal them.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

Something is up with Florian -- he had a pretty consistent pro-apple (pro logic, pro competitive market) opinion, but his recent positions have given me a severe case of whiplash.

Then tonight I read he used his $400 screen replacement experience to conclude that a 6" note screen means the software portion of a phone has little value. Wtf? Dude, you got ripped off for a phone repair. A 4" LCD screen isn't much cheaper than a 6" Note screen. Both about $50 in parts.

I really hope we don't find out he was samsunged.

For $A275 Apple replace the whole phone and warranty remains intact.

$A330 for an iPad retina.

It's like my Samsung fridge, it cost less to buy a new fridge than replace cracked shelves, so out the door it went.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

The thing with good UI design is that you're trying to make the controls seem obvious. But then if you succeed, people say "That's obvious, you can't patent that." So does that mean no decent UI can ever be patented?

Florian is simply stating that $40 per device for 5 patents is too much. Is that unreasonable? What would be too much? $400 per patent? $4000 ? Thousands of patents on a phone, and considering a lot of the patents generally are of dubious value, I doubt $40 for 5 patents is reasonable.

Roger that. I suspected you didn't have anything to back up your claims.

So easy getting a rise out of a troll.

You know how to add numbers, right? You understand Grade 3 math? Then you're all set. I suggest going to a tech blog that gets a large number of users/comments (and that isn't heavily moderated). Engadget is a good example (though any blog will do).

Read the following review. When you get to the comments, click on the "Top Comments" to see who got the most votes. You'll see that the majority of them are anti-Apple comments.

You can go to any Apple article/review and find the following points to be true:

1. They have the highest number of views/posts of all articles.

2. The largest number of posts are by the Apple haters.

3. The highest number of "likes" go to the negative Apple comments.

Go to any Android/Samsung article review and the following will be true:

1. They have fewer views/posts than a comparable Apple article.

2. The smallest number of posts are by Apple users/Android haters.

3. The highest number of likes go to the positive Android/Samsung comments.

Now go on and check this for yourself. A few minutes of searching article and scanning comments will verify what I've said to be true. Perhaps if you look long enough you'll find an article that DOESN'T conform to my points. But I highly doubt it.

What Apple do have is the deep pockets to sue others and claim they were first..
Apple have good marketing on top of a good product which was made up of a lot of components from other places. Cudo's to them for the product, keep producing more and compete in the market place - try suing less, it hurts your customers by holding back progress of technology by spending $ on lawyers instead.

Maybe neonode should have sued apple for $40/phone for using slide to unlock!
Or LG, another $40/phone, for Look and Feel of a rounded rectangle smartphone with a capacitive screen.. sheesh

1) I don't recall the Neonode having any slide-to-unlock functionality. The demo below clearly demonstrates a primitive swiping mechanism for proceeding, not for unlocking. This includes three dedicated buttons at the bottom of the screen that would allow you to swipe from bottom-to-top to access those menus, as well as as swiping left-to-right and right-to-left to answer Boolean questions Yes or No, respectively.

2) The LG Prada was not a multitouch capacitance device. Apple did not steal from LG and there was no way a single-touch capacitance device was ever going to be a runway hit like the iPhone. The SW was far too limited because like everything pre-iPhone no vendor cared about creating a viable OS that merged with the HW to make a great user experience. Apple and only Apple made this happen.

3) What Apple created was so well thought out and brilliant that everything that came out after it had to follow in its path, and year after year they have continued to set the pass of yet another industry which they dominate. You, of all people, should be happy for Apple decided to jump into this market because without Apple you would be using an inferior product. Your Android or WinPhone-based device is because of what Apple did, not in spite of, so be thankful.Edited by SolipsismX - 4/13/14 at 9:04pm

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

What Apple do have is the deep pockets to sue others and claim they were first..

Apple have good marketing on top of a good product which was made up of a lot of components from other places. Cudo's to them for the product, keep producing more and compete in the market place - try suing less, it hurts your customers by holding back progress of technology by spending $ on lawyers instead.

Maybe neonode should have sued apple for $40/phone for using slide to unlock!

Or LG, another $40/phone, for Look and Feel of a rounded rectangle smartphone with a capacitive screen.. sheesh

What a joke. First off, the link you provided for the Neonode is wrong. They claim "Nionode N1 was the first mobile where performing a gesture on an image unlocked the device". This is an outright lie. The Neonode never had a gesture on an image. You swiped on the lower edge of the screen to select "yes" (you could not do gestures anywhere on the screen - it was permanently fixed to the lower edge).

Secondly, Apple provided the user manual for the Neonode phone to the USPTO as part of their patent application. Apple knew all about the Neonode and included it to show the difference between their version and Neonode's.

Prada? That phone was such an inferior POS compared to the original iPhone I'm surprised people actually bring it up when discussing the iPhone. No, wait, I'm not. Intelligence seems to elude people when the word "Apple" and "patent" come up in the same discussion.

Florian is simply stating that $40 per device for 5 patents is too much. Is that unreasonable? What would be too much? $400 per patent? $4000 ? Thousands of patents on a phone, and considering a lot of the patents generally are of dubious value, I doubt $40 for 5 patents is reasonable.

When your patent is a non-SEP you're allowed to license it to whoever you want (and charge whatever you want). These Apple patents aren't SEP's, so Apple can do as they see fit.

Now Samsung, on the other hand, dropped their SEP's from this case. Good thing too, since they have been under scrutiny by the FTC for their obvious abuse of SEP obligations. Too bad, I hoped Samsung was stupid enough to bring their SEP's up in this case just to see the end result.

You know how to add numbers, right? You understand Grade 3 math? Then you're all set. I suggest going to a tech blog that gets a large number of users/comments (and that isn't heavily moderated). Engadget is a good example (though any blog will do).

Read the following review. When you get to the comments, click on the "Top Comments" to see who got the most votes. You'll see that the majority of them are anti-Apple comments.

You can go to any Apple article/review and find the following points to be true:

1. They have the highest number of views/posts of all articles.

2. The largest number of posts are by the Apple haters.

3. The highest number of "likes" go to the negative Apple comments.

Go to any Android/Samsung article review and the following will be true:

1. They have fewer views/posts than a comparable Apple article.

2. The smallest number of posts are by Apple users/Android haters.

3. The highest number of likes go to the positive Android/Samsung comments.

Now go on and check this for yourself. A few minutes of searching article and scanning comments will verify what I've said to be true. Perhaps if you look long enough you'll find an article that DOESN'T conform to my points. But I highly doubt it.

Ah, so that's what you're using as a source for your claim of what "the numbers" show. I understand now. Thanks.

[Samsung had swiping behaviors too. They didn’t work well, so it copied Apple’s patented implementation. Nearly every patent cites "prior art" that it builds upon. But Samsung didn’t copy the Neonode, it copied Apple over and over, closer and closer until it was infringing Apple's patent the same way HTC admitted. Samsung just doesn’t want to pay.]

[Apple didn’t patent any of those ideas, nor has it claimed to. It patented the complete design of the iPhone, which didn’t resemble the boxy LG Prada. Also, Samsung didn’t copy the Prada, it copied the iPhone.]

What Apple do have is the deep pockets to sue others and claim they were first..

[You think LG and Samsung didn’t have "deep pockets"? They just lacked deep vision, and were left behind. Now they copy.]

Apple have good marketing on top of a good product which was made up of a lot of components from other places. Cudo's to them for the product, keep producing more and compete in the market place - try suing less, it hurts your customers by holding back progress of technology by spending $ on lawyers instead.

Maybe neonode should have sued apple for $40/phone for using slide to unlock!

Or LG, another $40/phone, for Look and Feel of a rounded rectangle smartphone with a capacitive screen.. sheesh

[Does Neonode have a patent on any aspect of its implementation? No. Does LG have any patents on the design of its overpriced 2007 phone that nobody cared about? No.]

He's entitled to his view, whether it's pro-Apple or pro-Samsung, his stance itself shouldn't bother anyone. What strikes me as weird is how he abruptly changed his tune sometime earlier this year.

He mentioned the fact that people were confused by his view change which shows that quite a few people have found the change odd. He did say that people who assumed he was pro-Apple or anti-Android had misunderstood his position but I think there's more to it than that.

The thing with good UI design is that you're trying to make the controls seem obvious. But then if you succeed, people say "That's obvious, you can't patent that." So does that mean no decent UI can ever be patented?

Apple's patents seem to be one step removed from 'touching a screen, to make something happen- on a mobile device' so I'm not a huge fan of them.

The patent system needs a complete rework, it wasn't designed in, and is very inept, to handle the modern era.

Yes, the patent system needs work, but your previous statement is complete bullshit. Apple's patents, especially the ones it's defending, are extremely specific and detailed, and it has shown a mountain of evidence over how Samsung has systematically and methodically ripped off these specific implementations, through Samsung's own documentation. But I see you're going for the intellectually dishonest "lol rounded corners" meme, so whatever floats your boat.

Florian is simply stating that $40 per device for 5 patents is too much. Is that unreasonable? What would be too much? $400 per patent? $4000 ? Thousands of patents on a phone, and considering a lot of the patents generally are of dubious value, I doubt $40 for 5 patents is reasonable.

Florian and you are neglecting the fact that Apple has settled with other major players in mobile hardware, Apple can legally be discriminatory in its pricing because its patents are nonessential and Samsung chose to infringe, and Samsung is the only major player that hasn't agreed not to copy Apple's designs. Under those conditions, $40 each is a very reasonable--and legal--demand to make of Samsung.

Remember: it's a free country and Samsung doesn't have to accept the offer.

Perhaps Samsung would like to counter offer by getting out of the business, the schmucks.